Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[pbrower2a]

(01-22-2021, 02:12 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-22-2021, 05:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's true, mamabug and classic. The nub of the problem is really people not disowning Republican ideas. 

So, basically, the problem of the crisis is 'wrong think'.  Or, to borrow from an earlier era, "The Crisis will not end until those evil papists turn from their sin and embrace the King as the head of the Church!"

A Crisis exists because of catastrophic failures, many of which come from 'new' ideas that are superficially attractive to people who didn't learn their consequences in the last Crisis. In a memorable cartoon from Mad Magazine in the 1960's, one of the elderly pair of geezers (probably Lost) says to the other "It's not the new morality; it's the old immorality!" People who know what the blunders are from their experience don't find them so seductive the next time that they appear. Blunders must first seduce. 

Let's look at the most obvious blunder: the lure of easy money, money not gained so much through toil, investment, innovation, the honing of skill, and enterprise. There is going to be a new era that makes all the old fashioned ways of personal sacrifice irrelevant. The speculative bubble is attractive for many reasons -- until one runs out of suckers to buy in. At that point there are only sellers, and if the speculative investment  doesn't generate much of an income, then it rapidly loses its value. 

While people are buying into the speculative bubble they are not investing in plant and equipment that create jobs for industrial workers (among others); as they read about how well their investments are doing they aren't honing their skills. It is far easier than starting a shoe-string business unless one dedicated to selling status symbols to those who think themselves getting rich. 

Then it is back to the old-fashioned ways of eking out a bare living because living the high life is no longer available.      

Quote:I think I've read enough of your views to understand I have little hope in convincing you of why I see this as an incredibly dangerous mentality to take hold in those who control the levers of power, you seem fully immersed in the stereotypical Boomer 'Black vs. White' thinking.  I'm sure if, in the coming months, a few eggs need to be broken to form the coming utopia I will be able to read your justifications of it.

We have developed a perverse sort of utopia in the last four decades, one that depends upon the assumption that nothing matters except the power, indulgence, and gain of those already super-rich, with others obliged to work for a mockery of a living in jobs far too small for their spirits and talents. In the 1980's there was huge growth in merchandising and food service as manufacturing jobs vanished. No single adult generation was at fault for all; all but except X (to the extent that they were not yet adult) and the Lost (off the scene) were partly culpable. GI's got the reassurance that they would keep getting pensions and Social Security; many drove around in RV's with bumper stickers that read "We're spending our grandchildren's inheritance". That was an understatement. The RV was guzzling motor fuel and belching greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and grandparents weren't putting money into college funds. The Silent could keep their soft jobs as long as they wanted. Boomers were looking for meaning in life instead of hard labor or numbing tasks -- and ended up working in a shopping mall or a fast-food place despite a college degree while talented people avoided factory work and construction. 

We are still paying a high price for that. American businesses went from being manufacturers to being importers. The acquisitive drive remains, and when the easiest way to make a buck is to spend money on the right paper investment, then that prevails.    

Quote:I'm just going to repeat my earlier assertion that a Crisis Era does not arise because there is an actual, real problem that needs drastic action to solve.  The 'problem' is just a manifestation of underlying splits in society - you could subtitle this hypothesis 'King George was Right.'  The Crisis Era arises when generations align in a structure that fosters a social belief that not only does a given, selected 'problem' need to be solved, but it is so important they become willing to solve it via force and are able to morally justify marginalizing, impoverishing, imprisoning and/or outright killing their neighbor.

Some societies that go through a Crisis Era force history through conquest, genocide, and enslavement, as did the Axis Powers in the last Crisis Era.  Some solve their core problems more gently. The most effective way to get through a Crisis is to discover what has failed and do some combination of old ways that work with major reforms. So a society commits to technologies that can make life easier and more enriching and rediscovers doing things that pay off only in the long term, offer no quick-buck easy money, require deferral (or even denial) of gratification, and have low yields -- and require hard work and the development of customer loyalty (which is easy to lose and hard to develop).

So the monopolized, bureaucratic, unimaginative behemoths vanish. People who lose their jobs must start anew and focus on economic survival instead of control of a system.    

Quote:In the last turning, we directed most of that willingness outward.  The two turnings before that we directed it inward (North vs. South, loyalists vs. freedom fighters).  Both were very bloody.   Of course, in the modern era, we could have a kinder, gentler suppression where we simply 'unperson' people by depriving them of their jobs, access to federal services, the ability to access the public square, and equal protection under the law.

 
No two Crises are quite alike. There will be different sets of villains and victims, victors and vanquished. Just imagine how life would now be for many of us had the insurrection of January 6 succeeded. People who acted much like those who stormed the Winter Palace would decide what political figures would be relevant and which ones would not. Donald Trump would have been declared President (if necessary at gunpoint), and the revolutionaries would redefine American politics. The personality cult around Donald Trump would prevail. People would learn quickly that enthusiastic support matters more in such activities as teaching, librarianship, and clergy than does competence and intellectual flexibility. There would be plenty of opportunity for hacks to rewrite school textbooks to extol the person and agenda of Donald Trump. People would know that the US flag by tradition is at the top followed by something extolling the personality cult (as opposed to the US flag). We would be expected to emulate the banality of that wondrous person. We go back to environment-ruining practices because they are profitable... and if we have to import coal, then we do that to sate the greed of coal barons who no longer need miners. Global warming becomes a myth. Anyone who gets in the way is ruined or treated even worse. 

The demise of the Trump agenda and personality implies also the demise of the core values (ahem!) behind them. Rationality emerges as a source of solutions and replaces bureaucratic power and shady command-and-control systems. People (at this the Millennial generation will be the support while Millennials deputize some X, Boomers, and even Silent to be formal leaders) will insist upon sharing the sacrifices and rewards more equitably. It will be less attractive to have even regional divides (and these have often become more flagrant than ethnic divides) of 'winners' and 'losers' by region. Americans have been discovering the hard way that poverty is more an impediment than a spur to work.

Even as we have seen a trend to plutocracy in the neoliberal cycle of politics (beginning with the Reagan "Revolution" and failing with Trump, many of us have lived through an economic transformation without noticing it. In the First World we are at the end of the line for the era in which making and selling more stuff allows greater happiness. High technology of the computer and the Internet allows us to read this:

       https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2701




without having to possess a physical copy. The copyright has been expired for perhaps a century.

If you are interested in reading the only novel by Ayn Rand that won't destroy your soul like sulfuric acid destroys flesh, this one work managed to slip out of copyright:

https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1250

  


That is only literature. You can get full video of concerts. Because of YouTube I have discovered a masterful conductor well-suited to Anton Bruckner, Sergiu Celibidache. Celibidache didn't like to record; he far preferred loive concerts to the exclusion of recording, unlike his contemporary Herbert von Karajan. Karajan is one of my favorite overall conductors of Bruckner (who wrote long works as symphonies). 

Not all is free to the customer, but obviously one can dispense with all the newsprint if one has an e-subscription to a newspaper of high journalistic standards. Best Buy allows one to get a large, super-high-definition TV which doubles as a picture frame which allows one (on a subscription basis) to use your TV to display a renowned work of art. So maybe one won't need to travel so much and will not need to buy newspapers to cast off as trash after one day. 
  

Quote: 
If you disagree that the democrats could or would do this, please explain to me how you would resolve the Crisis of 'people holding Republican ideas' if almost exactly 1/2 of the country hold one or more ideas that could be considered 'Republican.'

Republicans involved in the insurrection will be ruined politically soon enough. Nobody has any justification for making possible a security breach that puts fellow members of Congress at risk of violence. Nobody has a right to organize a riot. Political tastes may be changing rapidly, and the old sort of conservative will have to rebrand Reagan-Tea Party-Trump conservatism into something benign and practical. Core values that existed with little question in the 3T may be proved very wrong. 

Humanistic liberals have an edge: they do not need any hierarchy except of talent and achievement (I'd say that that is a small-r republican virtue, wouldn't you?). The technology that we have mandates as much sophistication in its use (lest it become numbing or exploitative) as in its creation and manufacture. The opportunities for editing, marketing, criticizing, and archiving will themselves create excellent opportunities for careers. 

Creating value with less material is technological advancement at its purest. Technology is not so much the opposite of lack as it is of brute-force ways of doing things. We are going to have more and better options for a good life, and we will not need as much toil to do what we need to do.

[Eric the Green]

(01-22-2021, 02:12 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-22-2021, 05:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's true, mamabug and classic. The nub of the problem is really people not disowning Republican ideas. 

So, basically, the problem of the crisis is 'wrong think'.  Or, to borrow from an earlier era, "The Crisis will not end until those evil papists turn from their sin and embrace the King as the head of the Church!"

I think I've read enough of your views to understand I have little hope in convincing you of why I see this as an incredibly dangerous mentality to take hold in those who control the levers of power, you seem fully immersed in the stereotypical Boomer 'Black vs. White' thinking.  I'm sure if, in the coming months, a few eggs need to be broken to form the coming utopia I will be able to read your justifications of it.

I'm just going to repeat my earlier assertion that a Crisis Era does not arise because there is an actual, real problem that needs drastic action to solve.  The 'problem' is just a manifestation of underlying splits in society - you could subtitle this hypothesis 'King George was Right.'  The Crisis Era arises when generations align in a structure that fosters a social belief that not only does a given, selected 'problem' need to be solved, but it is so important they become willing to solve it via force and are able to morally justify marginalizing, impoverishing, imprisoning and/or outright killing their neighbor.

In the last turning, we directed most of that willingness outward.  The two turnings before that we directed it inward (North vs. South, loyalists vs. freedom fighters).  Both were very bloody.   Of course, in the modern era, we could have a kinder, gentler suppression where we simply 'unperson' people by depriving them of their jobs, access to federal services, the ability to access the public square, and equal protection under the law.  

If you disagree that the democrats could or would do this, please explain to me how you would resolve the Crisis of 'people holding Republican ideas' if almost exactly 1/2 of the country hold one or more ideas that could be considered 'Republican.'

Biden is open to compromise to get things done, and so am I. I am forecasting the end of the libertarian reign, which has been very harmful, but I know the United States has been spellbound by Reaganomics for 40 years so I know there's only so much progress that can be made. But I am convinced we are starting a new era, and if the country changed before from keynesian to reaganoid, it can change again, gradual though it may be. Those who are holding on to this ideology for dear life, like Rand Paul and the Trump crazies, will gradually pass from the scene to be replaced by the younger, more-diverse generations.

I agree with Strauss and Howe instead that the problems that arise in the Crisis are real and arise from the neglect that happened because of the focus on cultural renewal followed by culture war. In the 4T, we must refocus on dealing with the "outward" problems or secular problems again and remember the value of institutions as opposed to individualism. These are the two poles that the saeculum oscillates between: secular/institutional and sacred or spiritual and individualist. I think if you read the book, you will find that this is the authors' view, not just that prophets come along and decide to solve made-up problems by force. And Boomers today I believe have been succeeded by Xers who have an even more drastic conception of black vs. white.

I would put the Revolution as "directing the willingness to solve" outward, since the British were viewed as an invading army. But there is some direction inward in these outward-directed 4Ts too, as was also the case in the Great Depression. I agree that in the age when war is becoming obsolete and outdated, the 4T struggle this time will be kinder and gentler. But it is the Republicans today who are "depriving them of their jobs, access to federal services, the ability to access the public square, and equal protection under the law."

The only way to resolve the current divide is for one side to win. The fourth turning is an all- or- nothing affair, more or less. Some compromises may be made here and there. Obama basically compromised the chance for renewal away. But the critical needs of the country are real, and so the Left will press forward. Since in this "double rhythm" we are more directed toward our own country, where the biggest problems are, it could lead to civil war. Or, if we are kinder and gentler, perhaps an agreement of red and blue to separate for a while. Or, just a political victory at the ballot box by the blue, and suppression of those who, like those on Jan.6, choose not to accept solutions and destiny, and violently rebel. These days, the red side cannot win the popular vote, and can take power only through the outdated electoral college and voter suppression, or through an attempted coup.

I suggest you take a good look at the ideology you are holding onto, and see where you might be willing to let go of some of it for the sake of achieving consensus. Do you see Reagan or Trump as your prophet? Must you be wedded to neo-liberalism as the only solution? Can you accept people who are different from you as being allowed to live freely in your country? Can you accept that sometimes taxes need to be raised, and regulations must be adopted to rein in businessmen who are too greedy and abusive? Can you see the value of public ownership and de-monopolizing of some enterprises, while preserving the right of entrepreneurs to go into business and make money? Can you see the value of public investment in the national interest? Can you see the value of some regulation of guns? Can you see the possible error of your ways if you denied the covid crisis and the need for protective measures? Must you cling to the idea that giving breaks to the wealthy will trickle down, when they don't? Can you see that democracy is the way forward, not authoritarian rule by a leader who denies a free and fair election and calls it rigged when it was not, and spearheads a coup attempt because he didn't get his way?

If we want consensus, then both sides will have to adapt, and the red side, which is the conservative stand-pat side that must yield some ground in the Crisis, or be defeated, must adapt more. The progressive side has always won in 4Ts in the USA/UK saeculum, and it must win again if we are to progress and not decline.

And, in it's time, in the Wars of the Roses, and in the following Elizabethan era, the way of progress was indeed through the Tudors and then the rule of the King or Queen over the Papists. Then, next time, was the way of partial Parliamentary rule over corrupt absolute rule by kings. Then, it was a new Republic rather than the King of the colonies. Then, it was a union dedicated to freedom rather than one section dedicated to slavery. Then, as still today, it was the rule of the common man over big business, and, maybe also like today, human dignity over racism and world conquest by dictators. But this time, a livable planet also hangs in the balance.

[mamabug]

(01-29-2021, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I suggest you take a good look at the ideology you are holding onto, and see where you might be willing to let go of some of it for the sake of achieving consensus. 

I will never let go of the ideology that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I will never cease to be a Bill of Rights near-absolutist that sees any infringement upon it as something that should only be allowable under the most extreme circumstances.  I will also never cease to revile those that seek to use the private sphere to abrogate those ideals simply because they are not subject to the limitations we impose on our government.   

If I have to let go of that ideology to achieve consensus, it isn't worth it. Whatever comes out of that 'consensus' simply won't be American, no matter how prettily you dress it up.  That you think 'accepting people who are different from you to live freely in your country' is *still* a left-wing value shows either how disconnected you are from the up and coming generation of progressives or that you are deep in cognitive dissonance.  

Everything else is up for negotiation, but without that fundamental acknowledgement that people who have different opinions than you politically ARE NOT EVIL, I see little hope of a consensus even forming.  

Quote:And, in it's time, in the Wars of the Roses, and in the following Elizabethan era, the way of progress was indeed through the Tudors and then the rule of the King or Queen over the Papists. Then, next time, was the way of partial Parliamentary rule over corrupt absolute rule by kings. Then, it was a new Republic rather than the King of the colonies. Then, it was a union dedicated to freedom rather than one section dedicated to slavery. Then, as still today, it was the rule of the common man over big business, and, maybe also like today, human dignity over racism and world conquest by dictators. But this time, a livable planet also hangs in the balance.

For Russia, the way of progress lay through Stalin. For China, Mao. For Weimar Germany, it was (like it or not) Hitler.  You talk about 'the path of progress' in the events above, but you refuse to acknowledge the amount of injustice and bloodshed it took to get there.  Henry VIII killed more people than his daughter did all to secure power to himself in what was, effectively, an anti-globalist movement.

I ask you again - what happens if all these reactionary elements and kulaks refuse to jump on board with the DNC vision?  What if they keep voting for populists, keep obstructing, keep trying to use every (and let's say peaceful for now) means necessary to make sure their voices are heard and opinions counted?  How much are you willing to violate their civil liberties and unequally apply the law so that they can't live freely in this country?  So that their voices and ability to argue their point is silenced?  And, if it comes to that, how much blood are you willing to see spilled?

The main thing I have been warning against is this.  That those in favor of what they call 'progress' will use their sense of moral certainty to enact otherwise unconscionable violations of civil liberties upon their *political* opponents and justify it all because they are on the side of good.  It is already happening using unaccountable and unelected billionaires as proxies, the danger in a 4T is this becomes normalized through the government and the judicial system as well.

[pbrower2a]

Yes, it is still being measured: Donald Trump

Georgia (Atlanta Journal-Constitution): 40 (29 strong) approve; 57 (48 strong) disapprove

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18-5_yux...FedlP/view

[Einzige]

You have to be fucking retarded to think that even the AOCite faction of the Democratic Party consists of Communists. They're market shills in the service of "progressive" Capital and nothing more. Actual Marxists at e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/ despise these lying succdem reformist Kautskyite cocksuckers.

[David Horn]

This is a great post needing a serous reply. I'll do my best.

(01-29-2021, 05:14 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-29-2021, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I suggest you take a good look at the ideology you are holding onto, and see where you might be willing to let go of some of it for the sake of achieving consensus. 

I will never let go of the ideology that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I will never cease to be a Bill of Rights near-absolutist that sees any infringement upon it as something that should only be allowable under the most extreme circumstances.  I will also never cease to revile those that seek to use the private sphere to abrogate those ideals simply because they are not subject to the limitations we impose on our government.   

If I have to let go of that ideology to achieve consensus, it isn't worth it. Whatever comes out of that 'consensus' simply won't be American, no matter how prettily you dress it up.  That you think 'accepting people who are different from you to live freely in your country' is *still* a left-wing value shows either how disconnected you are from the up and coming generation of progressives or that you are deep in cognitive dissonance.  

Everything else is up for negotiation, but without that fundamental acknowledgement that people who have different opinions than you politically ARE NOT EVIL, I see little hope of a consensus even forming.  

My benchmark for honoring freedom was stated by Robert Jackson, the last Supreme Court Justice to "read the law": "the Constitution is not a suicide pact".  To me, that means there are inherent limits to everything -- even rights.  The printed word, no matter how well considered, is no replacement for basic common sense.  Case in point: section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that has lead to unintended horrors yet to be addressed.  This wasn't evil in action, but an attempt to grant the widest possible freedom to the internet, and it failed miserably.  

mamabug Wrote:

Eric the Green Wrote:And, in it's time, in the Wars of the Roses, and in the following Elizabethan era, the way of progress was indeed through the Tudors and then the rule of the King or Queen over the Papists. Then, next time, was the way of partial Parliamentary rule over corrupt absolute rule by kings. Then, it was a new Republic rather than the King of the colonies. Then, it was a union dedicated to freedom rather than one section dedicated to slavery. Then, as still today, it was the rule of the common man over big business, and, maybe also like today, human dignity over racism and world conquest by dictators. But this time, a livable planet also hangs in the balance.

For Russia, the way of progress lay through Stalin. For China, Mao. For Weimar Germany, it was (like it or not) Hitler.  You talk about 'the path of progress' in the events above, but you refuse to acknowledge the amount of injustice and bloodshed it took to get there.  Henry VIII killed more people than his daughter did all to secure power to himself in what was, effectively, an anti-globalist movement.

I ask you again - what happens if all these reactionary elements and kulaks refuse to jump on board with the DNC vision?  What if they keep voting for populists, keep obstructing, keep trying to use every (and let's say peaceful for now) means necessary to make sure their voices are heard and opinions counted?  How much are you willing to violate their civil liberties and unequally apply the law so that they can't live freely in this country?  So that their voices and ability to argue their point is silenced?  And, if it comes to that, how much blood are you willing to see spilled?

The main thing I have been warning against is this.  That those in favor of what they call 'progress' will use their sense of moral certainty to enact otherwise unconscionable violations of civil liberties upon their *political* opponents and justify it all because they are on the side of good.  It is already happening using unaccountable and unelected billionaires as proxies, the danger in a 4T is this becomes normalized through the government and the judicial system as well.

These are all great points, but they demand a reflective response: reverse the parties and ask how tolerant of their adversaries those kulaks will be in return for tolerance of their views?  I suspect, based on recent history alone, that tolerance will be demanded of all the non-kulaks, and never granted by them in return.  That's the history of the 1830s, 40s and 50s.  Your question applies even moreso to the 1870s, 80s and later.  In short, intolerance is intolerance.  It may be that, in their righteous anger, these kulaks refuse to comply with the majority, and I have no doubt that the majority will never support the kind of nonsense being pitched by the extreme right.  Will they relent and, if not, how should they be handled?  Personally, I would carve-out a chunk of Red Country, and bid them adieu --  but it's not up to me, is it.

[Eric the Green]

(01-29-2021, 05:14 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-29-2021, 03:12 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I suggest you take a good look at the ideology you are holding onto, and see where you might be willing to let go of some of it for the sake of achieving consensus. 

I will never let go of the ideology that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I will never cease to be a Bill of Rights near-absolutist that sees any infringement upon it as something that should only be allowable under the most extreme circumstances.  I will also never cease to revile those that seek to use the private sphere to abrogate those ideals simply because they are not subject to the limitations we impose on our government.   

If I have to let go of that ideology to achieve consensus, it isn't worth it. Whatever comes out of that 'consensus' simply won't be American, no matter how prettily you dress it up.  That you think 'accepting people who are different from you to live freely in your country' is *still* a left-wing value shows either how disconnected you are from the up and coming generation of progressives or that you are deep in cognitive dissonance.  

Everything else is up for negotiation, but without that fundamental acknowledgement that people who have different opinions than you politically ARE NOT EVIL, I see little hope of a consensus even forming.  

Some people who have different opinions from me are evil. It depends. White supremacists and Nazis are evil. Totalitarian and gangster, genocidal rulers like Stalin, Assad and Putin are evil. Neo-liberals may not be evil, necessarily. It's just that their policies are wrong, and need to be defeated politically. But as I say, some level of compromise with them may be possible, at least once the 4T is over. 4Ts tend to be all-or-nothing, and that's just because of the nature of 4Ts. But something may come out of this 4T that works for enough of the majority that the Crisis lessens. That is what has always happened before.

"I will never let go of the ideology that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" either. These true liberal ideals are necessary. But I am not in favor of the 2nd Amendment, and think it should be repealed. Until then, I favor any regulation on guns that can be achieved, consistent with the consensus of the people. Forced confiscation I view as a last and very limited resort.

But this sentence of yours I don't understand, and might be a part of contemporary libertarian ideology, with which I often disagree: "I will also never cease to revile those that seek to use the private sphere to abrogate those ideals simply because they are not subject to the limitations we impose on our government." The problem we face is that the government is not placing sufficient limitations on the private sphere when it abrogates liberal ideals. You need to consider this if you are going to be part of any consensus.

Quote:

Quote:And, in it's time, in the Wars of the Roses, and in the following Elizabethan era, the way of progress was indeed through the Tudors and then the rule of the King or Queen over the Papists. Then, next time, was the way of partial Parliamentary rule over corrupt absolute rule by kings. Then, it was a new Republic rather than the King of the colonies. Then, it was a union dedicated to freedom rather than one section dedicated to slavery. Then, as still today, it was the rule of the common man over big business, and, maybe also like today, human dignity over racism and world conquest by dictators. But this time, a livable planet also hangs in the balance.

For Russia, the way of progress lay through Stalin. For China, Mao. For Weimar Germany, it was (like it or not) Hitler.  You talk about 'the path of progress' in the events above, but you refuse to acknowledge the amount of injustice and bloodshed it took to get there.  Henry VIII killed more people than his daughter did all to secure power to himself in what was, effectively, an anti-globalist movement.

I ask you again - what happens if all these reactionary elements and kulaks refuse to jump on board with the DNC vision?  What if they keep voting for populists, keep obstructing, keep trying to use every (and let's say peaceful for now) means necessary to make sure their voices are heard and opinions counted?  How much are you willing to violate their civil liberties and unequally apply the law so that they can't live freely in this country?  So that their voices and ability to argue their point is silenced?  And, if it comes to that, how much blood are you willing to see spilled?

The main thing I have been warning against is this.  That those in favor of what they call 'progress' will use their sense of moral certainty to enact otherwise unconscionable violations of civil liberties upon their *political* opponents and justify it all because they are on the side of good.  It is already happening using unaccountable and unelected billionaires as proxies, the danger in a 4T is this becomes normalized through the government and the judicial system as well.

Russia and China do not follow the anglo-american saeculum, and we can't apply our standards to them. They have no democratic or liberal human rights tradition. Stalin achieved industrialization, but overall his reign was not progress, and neither was Mao's. Not in our terms. Hitler was extraordinary regression. The achievement of that 4T for Germany was made by the Allies to defeat him. They were all certainly evil rulers, and I oppose them and those who emulate them, like Putin today. Putin's reign shows how little progress Russia has achieved. You can almost say progress does not happen in that country. He is just the latest of their tsars. Henry VIII was a tyrant, but he was what the country needed, to reign in the dynastic wars and move religion in a more liberal direction, whatever his own motives were. In the long run, the religion he instituted, the Church of England/Episcopal Church, is a fine institution which upholds liberal values.

You asked me again, and I say again; the reactionary elements will be defeated, especially if they rise up violently as they did on Jan.6th. Their "cause" has even less potential than the defeated Confederates. These folks do not vote for populists. James B Weaver, W.J. Bryan and Teddy Roosevelt were populists. FDR and Eleanor, Huey Long (corrupt though he was), Father Townshend, Henry Wallace, Bernie Sanders; these are populists. Not those stupid, ignorant rioters. Not Trump supporters. I have not supported violating their democratic rights, and if anything, they get favored treatment in every way by the current system.

IF you are claiming that Trump won the election and that it was rigged, then you are undemocratic and are allied with the mob. You certainly must let go of that idea, if you hold it. If you are not claiming this, I don't understand the reason for your statement. You seem unwilling to accept that the majority may decree laws and policies with which you disagree. I am probably the same way. So, the battle is joined, and I hope for it to be a political battle, not a violent one that violates human rights. I consider the Trump side to be the one that wants to institute an authoritarian regime that violates the human rights that you say you believe in, and which I uphold as well.

All conspiracy theories today, whether they appeal to the left, right, center, libertarians, or statists, are looney and wrong and dangerous to one degree or another. I have no idea what you mean by using un-elected billionaires as proxies. It is the Trump, Republican side that defends the pretensions and privileges of billionaires, and has installed Courts to defend them. Libertarian economics enables and defends billionaires like the Koch Brothers (Charles even ran for vice-president on the Libertarian ticket). It is today's genuine populists like Sanders, Warren and AOC, and Rachel Maddow, who challenge them. I don't understand how today's conservatives can so twist things into their opposite. But you manage.

But thanks for your posts being more rational than those of the right-wing Classic Xer or the left-wing Einzige, or our libertarian spammer.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-29-2021, 05:14 PM)mamabug Wrote: I will never let go of the ideology that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  I will never cease to be a Bill of Rights near-absolutist that sees any infringement upon it as something that should only be allowable under the most extreme circumstances.  I will also never cease to revile those that seek to use the private sphere to abrogate those ideals simply because they are not subject to the limitations we impose on our government.   

If I have to let go of that ideology to achieve consensus, it isn't worth it. Whatever comes out of that 'consensus' simply won't be American, no matter how prettily you dress it up.  That you think 'accepting people who are different from you to live freely in your country' is *still* a left-wing value shows either how disconnected you are from the up and coming generation of progressives or that you are deep in cognitive dissonance.  

Everything else is up for negotiation, but without that fundamental acknowledgement that people who have different opinions than you politically ARE NOT EVIL, I see little hope of a consensus even forming. 

The idea that all people are equal under law for me is mixed in with the Bill of Rights at some level.  Your revulsion at those who reject those ideals is understandable, but the idea that minorities aren't equal, are considered less equal because their ancestors came in at the wrong time or their skin is pigmented differently is by many considered abhorrent by the standard you set.

And occasionally the other guys are evil.  If they are trying to throw away votes against them cast by minorities, if they attempt a violent insurrection, I'm sorry.  They violate the principle you list and count as making you itch.  Those violations make me itch.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2021, 04:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But thanks for your posts being more rational than those of the right-wing Classic Xer or the left-wing Einzige, or our libertarian spammer.

True, but that it a rather low bar to exceed.  

[Einzige]

(01-31-2021, 06:01 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 04:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: But thanks for your posts being more rational than those of the right-wing Classic Xer or the left-wing Einzige, or our libertarian spammer.

True, but that it a rather low bar to exceed.  

The only reason you find each other rational is because you both share implicit liberal assumptions about the way the world works. The center left and the center right exist to defend capitalism. All human rights are the rights of the minority, i.e. the rich. This is universally understood and everywhere conceded, except in spoken conversation.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-22-2021, 05:15 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's true, mamabug and classic. The nub of the problem is really people not disowning Republican ideas. It is Trump's policies that are the most dangerous. Like brower I knew decades before that Trump was an immoral clod, and said so on the old T4T forum over 20 years ago. I didn't yet know what would be the full extent of the destructive harm of his future presidency's policies. So long as opposition to Trump focuses only on his personality, and even only on his corruption and treasonous sedition, it misses the point. It is the Republican ideology that needs to be disempowered. 

I expect this (and have predicted this) to happen gradually; not all at once, but through the 2020s. We'll see if it happens. Unless it does, our society remains mired in this delusive, unnecessary detour given us by the horrible charming faux-macho actor 40 years ago. It remains truly tragic in every way, and destined for total failure, for our country and for the world. The nation truly MUST decide whether to continue this horrible, destructive, neo-liberal, trickle-down, xenophobic and racist social darwinism, or not. Before this happens, indeed, "this Crisis has not yet hit a point where it can be said to be resulting in a renewed social fabric that is the primary benefit of the High."

http://philosopherswheel.com/freemarket.html

An immoral clod does nothing to stop/impede violence, makes excuses for it, ignores it, associates it with someone else or something else and helps it continue to go on for several months unchecked and stymies all efforts by those who want to help those who are under attack or do something about it to stop it. Well, we know who the immoral clods are these days. We know what side they're on and control as well. So, its just a matter of warning people and clearly establish the difference between those on the American right and the Left Wing Progressives (immoral clods).

[mamabug]

(01-31-2021, 10:06 AM)David Horn Wrote: My benchmark for honoring freedom was stated by Robert Jackson, the last Supreme Court Justice to "read the law": "the Constitution is not a suicide pact".  To me, that means there are inherent limits to everything -- even rights.  The printed word, no matter how well considered, is no replacement for basic common sense.  Case in point: section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), that has lead to unintended horrors yet to be addressed.  This wasn't evil in action, but an attempt to grant the widest possible freedom to the internet, and it failed miserably.  

I agree with the sentiment, although lately it seems to be used a lot by people as justification for abrogating Civil Rights further.   The main point, for me, is to hold these rights as a moral good that should only be infringed upon in cases where there are legitimate competing rights that can't easily coexist.  I see Civil Rights Act legislation as an example of one of those.  There we have the right to freedom of association (1st Amendment) coming up against the right to be treated equally (14th Amendment).  One of these has to give way and society needs to determine whether the harm of not being able to freely associate is or is not outweighed by the harm of not being able to participate fully in the public and private sphere.  

I don't think these decisions are easy, I just desire that they not be taken lightly and with full appreciation of the potential consequences.  It is never the majority that needs it's rights protected from the minority which is why it is dangerous when society ceases to hold a shared understanding that they are important.

Quote:These are all great points, but they demand a reflective response: reverse the parties and ask how tolerant of their adversaries those kulaks will be in return for tolerance of their views?  I suspect, based on recent history alone, that tolerance will be demanded of all the non-kulaks, and never granted by them in return.  That's the history of the 1830s, 40s and 50s.  Your question applies even moreso to the 1870s, 80s and later.  In short, intolerance is intolerance.  It may be that, in their righteous anger, these kulaks refuse to comply with the majority, and I have no doubt that the majority will never support the kind of nonsense being pitched by the extreme right.  Will they relent and, if not, how should they be handled?  Personally, I would carve-out a chunk of Red Country, and bid them adieu --  but it's not up to me, is it.

I'm sure they wouldn't be tolerant, at least not in a 4T.  My level of tolerance for social persecution of those who disagree with me, though, is low.  I support prosecuting them if they engage in violence but otherwise leaving them alone.  If the left is right about the march of history, they'll die off on their own sooner or later.

[mamabug]

(01-31-2021, 05:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The idea that all people are equal under law for me is mixed in with the Bill of Rights at some level.  Your revulsion at those who reject those ideals is understandable, but the idea that minorities aren't equal, are considered less equal because their ancestors came in at the wrong time or their skin is pigmented differently is by many considered abhorrent by the standard you set.

Have I said anything to indicate I don't believe the 'All men' part of 'all men are created equal?'   

Quote:And occasionally the other guys are evil.  If they are trying to throw away votes against them cast by minorities, if they attempt a violent insurrection, I'm sorry.  They violate the principle you list and count as making you itch.  Those violations make me itch.

I tend to side with Solzhenitsyn on whether you can declare a person as evil or not, as opposed to actions or ideology.  And, as a good old-fashioned Civil Libertarian, I would still defend the rights of even people I think truly are evil.

The worrying trend I've seen over at least the last 20 years is the refusal to engage in serious policy discussions in favor of characterizing political opponents as innately evil (whether that is cries of racist, SJW, *phobic, or Marxist).   I can more easily point to where this has happened on the left than on the right, mostly because it seems more of a mainstream opinion on the left.  The unwillingness to see the distinction between people who wholly supported Trump and those who voted for him as the 'least objectionable' option is nearly non-existent.   That worries me if the hope is to have a 4T without wide-scale internal conflict.

There is truth to the old saw that the right sees the left as misguided while the left sees the right as evil.  In the last couple years, though, as the reaction against Trump became increasingly vitriolic and all encompassing, the 'left is evil' narrative has been becoming more mainstream as well.  

I never claim to have solutions, I'm mostly just watching trends and trying to identify which have the potential to go in a bad direction.  I long since gave up the belief that I have power to actually affect anything.

[Classic-Xer]

(01-31-2021, 07:16 PM)mamabug Wrote: I'm sure they wouldn't be tolerant, at least not in a 4T.  My level of tolerance for social persecution of those who disagree with me, though, is low.  I support prosecuting them if they engage in violence but otherwise leaving them alone.  If the left is right about the march of history, they'll die off on their own sooner or later.

Before you persecute them for using violence, you better understand who they are as people and what they're fighting to protect/defend and who they're fighting against and whether or not you're connected to them politically. The fact is that there's 70 million American right wingers who are living every where there is to live in this country who are all connected to each other one way or another these days. So, you really have to be careful about what you allow Democrats to do and careful about who/what group they can target these days. The chances of 70 some million Americans largely comprised of tail end Baby boomers, Gen Xr's, Millenials and Gen Z's going away anytime soon is none. As a matter of fact, its more likely the Democratic party fractures and implodes before the American right disappears/dies off these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

(01-31-2021, 08:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a matter of fact, its more likely the Democratic party fractures and implodes before the American right disappears these days.

Well, not if you look at history. The old values generally collapse in a crisis.

[mamabug]

(01-31-2021, 04:37 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Some people who have different opinions from me are evil. It depends. White supremacists and Nazis are evil. Totalitarian and gangster, genocidal rulers like Stalin, Assad and Putin are evil. Neo-liberals may not be evil, necessarily. It's just that their policies are wrong, and need to be defeated politically. But as I say, some level of compromise with them may be possible, at least once the 4T is over. 4Ts tend to be all-or-nothing, and that's just because of the nature of 4Ts. But something may come out of this 4T that works for enough of the majority that the Crisis lessens. That is what has always happened before.

I believe that very few people are actually evil.  Even those who adhere to 'evil' ideologies may not, themselves, be evil.  I prefer bad ideas and bad policies to be defeated through persuasion and strategic compromise.  I am hoping something comes out of this 4T that is workable for the majority AND that the process of getting there does not involve silencing, oppression, and/or extermination.  4Ts are all-or-nothing, which is why there is always the danger of bloodshed and not just on the part of the 'rebellion.'  Those responding to the so-called reactionaries have not, historically, been very good at drawing the line around who needs to be burned on the pyre of progress.

Quote:But this sentence of yours I don't understand, and might be a part of contemporary libertarian ideology, with which I often disagree: "I will also never cease to revile those that seek to use the private sphere to abrogate those ideals simply because they are not subject to the limitations we impose on our government." The problem we face is that the government is not placing sufficient limitations on the private sphere when it abrogates liberal ideals. You need to consider this if you are going to be part of any consensus.

I am referring to the phenomena of 'cancel culture' that allows a mob outraged over whatever narrative is being presented to use private levers of power to essentially silence, impoverish, and isolate random individuals declared 'guilty' of the crime du jour.  It is life-devastating consequences enacted without warning on people whose only real fault is holding a different political opinion and is justified because the actual agents of persecution are private companies not government.   

And if despising this means I don't end up being part of the consensus, I can live with myself.  I may hate the society I'm part of, but at least I'd stay true to my ideals.

Quote:You seem unwilling to accept that the majority may decree laws and policies with which you disagree. 

You seem unwilling to accept that our system is designed and intended for the minority to fight against laws and policies with which they disagree, forcing compromise that swings the pendulum two steps forward and one step back towards change.  I expect the DNC to try and enact their agenda when they are in power and I expect the GOP to fight against it.  I also expect the reverse to occur when the power balance changes. 

If the party in power pushes forward their agenda by destroying the mechanisms built into the system to allow objection, then a resolution to the 4T that involves the majority coalescing into a new center is unlikely to occur without actions that also silence and oppress objectors.  This is what I'm most concerned about, not whether the push-pull of American politics continues in it's usual 'nobody is completely happy' kind of way.

The parts of the population who are not fully onboard with the current agenda laid out by the DNC is still significant.  I am waiting on actions and legislation that will indicate whether they are being taken into account or going to be trampled over in the quest towards utopia.

Quote:I have no idea what you mean by using un-elected billionaires as proxies. It is the Trump, Republican side that defends the pretensions and privileges of billionaires, and has installed Courts to defend them.

Pardon me while I dissolve into laughter.

Pretty much the entire technology sector is hand-in-glove with the DNC at this point and they get plenty of cover and benefits for actions that align with the establishment DNC's interests.  They are just one example of billionaires who are on the democrat side of the aisle.  As someone (don't know who) said - if your opinion is supported by media, corporations, and Hollywood then you aren't part of a resistance.

[quote pid='74208' dateline='1612129073']
 Libertarian economics enables and defends billionaires like the Koch Brothers (Charles even ran for vice-president on the Libertarian ticket). It is today's genuine populists like Sanders, Warren and AOC, and Rachel Maddow, who challenge them. I don't understand how today's conservatives can so twist things into their opposite. But you manage.
[/quote]

 That you insist on seeing the class divide as being Democrat/Republican and not breaking across both is mind boggling to me.  Perhaps it is because you're mindset is stuck in an earlier political landscape.  

If I don't only ascribe 'true' populism to the left, maybe it's because I'm not a conservative.  On any political test I usually end up either moderate, libertarian, or left-leaning classical liberal.   If I seem conservative, maybe consider that it is because the DNC of today has moved much further left while some of us are still standing where we were back in the 1980s and 90s.

[pbrower2a]

(01-31-2021, 07:40 PM)mamabug Wrote:

(01-31-2021, 05:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The idea that all people are equal under law for me is mixed in with the Bill of Rights at some level.  Your revulsion at those who reject those ideals is understandable, but the idea that minorities aren't equal, are considered less equal because their ancestors came in at the wrong time or their skin is pigmented differently is by many considered abhorrent by the standard you set.

Have I said anything to indicate I don't believe the 'All men' part of 'all men are created equal?'   

Quote:And occasionally the other guys are evil.  If they are trying to throw away votes against them cast by minorities, if they attempt a violent insurrection, I'm sorry.  They violate the principle you list and count as making you itch.  Those violations make me itch.

I tend to side with Solzhenitsyn on whether you can declare a person as evil or not, as opposed to actions or ideology.  And, as a good old-fashioned Civil Libertarian, I would still defend the rights of even people I think truly are evil.

Most people have the choice between good and evil. Good creates fewer problems down the line. I'm not going to deny that people become evil after some part of their brain is damaged, typically the part that allows moral discretion. Look at most of the people sentenced to death, and you often find a legacy of head injuries, below-normal IQ's, and child abuse and neglect. 

There really isn't much "smart crime". There are easier ways to make a sustainable living -- like flipping hamburgers or doing assembly-line work. People need to see the long term. 

As for sick societies... yes, they exist. In those the government is run by gangsters, and doing evil on behalf of the Leader is either lucrative or mandatory. Secret police forces have ways to get people accustomed to beating, torturing, and killing people. Describe enemies as vermin? Sure. They are disloyal to the perfect New Order, one that will be free of "kulaks", Jews, landlords, "deviants", whatever... as in the Soviet Union, the Third Reich, Mao's China, Baathist Iraq... or people who, as in a place like Pinochet's Chile, anyone who disputes the idea that there is no purpose in life except to enrich those already rich.

We recently took baby steps in that direction and we seem to be in retreat from that. Bad habits form easily and are difficult to leave. Bad habits, like blunders, seduce.       

Quote:The worrying trend I've seen over at least the last 20 years is the refusal to engage in serious policy discussions in favor of characterizing political opponents as innately evil (whether that is cries of racist, SJW, *phobic, or Marxist).    I can more easily point to where this has happened on the left than on the right, mostly because it seems more of a mainstream opinion on the left.  The unwillingness to see the distinction between people who wholly supported Trump and those who voted for him as the 'least objectionable' option is nearly non-existent.   That worries me if the hope is to have a 4T without wide-scale internal conflict.

Donald Trump left plenty of warning signs. He has huge funds and he gets attached to a porn star. He is taped talking about grabbing women by their "kitty cats". He mocks  the handicapped. He denounces people for their religion and ethnicity.  A bit fewer than 46% or the American electorate vote for him in 2016, and an even larger share vote for him in 2020. Character is destiny, and people of bad character eventually get bad results even if they have competence and talent. Just look at Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, and Phil Spector. 

Hey, parents: if you must choose a life for your kid, and he seems lacking in character -- the sort of person who will abuse power if he can get away with it -- and you must choose between sending him to college or consigning him to a life of poverty as a farm laborer or store clerk, then choose poverty. The poor cannot get away with as much. 

Hey, college administrators: it is not enough that your students learn some rigorous knowledge; it is also important that they learn the value of doing right not so much when things are going well and it is easy... but even more, when it is difficult and requires sacrifices.      

Quote:There is truth to the old saw that the right sees the left as misguided while the left sees the right as evil.  In the last couple years, though, as the reaction against Trump became increasingly vitriolic and all encompassing, the 'left is evil' narrative has been becoming more mainstream as well. 

 
Alkalis and acids are supposed opposites, but their effects upon flesh are much the same. When they meet they react with violence corresponding to their differences in acidity. With an extreme base, water is a strong acid; with an extreme acid, water is an extreme base. So just imagine what happens when an extreme base like potassium metal meets sulfuric acid. 

Quote:I never claim to have solutions, I'm mostly just watching trends and trying to identify which have the potential to go in a bad direction.  I long since gave up the belief that I have power to actually affect anything.

Fascists and communists do not have my trust.

[Einzige]

You have to be willfully blund not to be able to see, plain as day, that a Marxist analysis clearly explains the whole of modern American politics - the Democrats represent the green and tech sectors along with the educational and parts of the military (Navy and to a lesser extent Air Force) complexes, while the Republicans represent extractive industrie like oil and coal, heavy manufacturing, and the Army and Marines. The Democrats also represent sectors concerned with trade, such as importers, while Republicans represent domestic manufacturing.

Is that a simplification? Barely. And the solutions proposed even by well-meaning "classical liberals" are innate. Take the Gamestop thing. That was all started by a specific Redditor, u/DeepFuckingValue, who had been pushing it for two years and just happened to have $300k to sink into it. What is actually going to happen is that a bunch of larger firms are going to gobble up the carcass of Melvkn Capital. Some people will make out like bandits, but for the most part this was an orchestrated "populist libertarian" move to benefit larger hedges.

The Democrats will, given free reign, absolutely create a morally hedonistic surveillance police state, racially integrated among the elite but with massive chasms at the bottom papered over by Keynesian makework and welfare programs. This is the direction we're going to move in.

The Republicans will, given free reign, absolutely create a morally puritanical police state, with less racial integration among the very elite but marginally more at the bottom as a consequence of their policies. 

The libertarians probably require an extended period of Democratic dominance for their niche views to begin to come to the fore, and America and capitalism will never be an anarchocapitslist paradise. The Greens, who are also capitalist of the worst kind, will find their views rolled into the Democratic Party. Most socialist sects are basically State capitalist.

It isn't a matter of wrongthink. Righthink does not change objective, concrete conditions. If the whole country converted to ideological Communism en masse, all at once, in their heads it would not further revolution whatsoever.

[Classic-Xer]

Bob Butler 54

(01-31-2021, 08:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a matter of fact, its more likely the Democratic party fractures and implodes before the American right disappears these days.

Well, not if you look at history.  The old values generally collapse in a crisis.

If you look at American history, you'll see that America has always prevailed. You're tied to the DNC. We're not tied to the GOP or the DNC. We are free to break with tradition, cut ties with the Democratic party and reestablish an American based nation.

[Bob Butler 54]

(02-01-2021, 03:56 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Bob Butler 54

(01-31-2021, 08:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: As a matter of fact, its more likely the Democratic party fractures and implodes before the American right disappears these days.

Well, not if you look at history.  The old values generally collapse in a crisis.

If you look at American history, you'll see that America has always prevailed. You're tied to the DNC. We're not tied to the GOP or the DNC. We are free to break with tradition, cut ties with the Democratic party and reestablish an American based nation.

Not really.  In every crisis, the largest problems with the culture are addressed.  This is the second time, with the US Civil War being the first, that race has played a large role in a crisis.  That is when the two cultures primarily go head to head.  In such cases, as in most cases, America has stepped further away from the Agricultural Age patterns.  It has been the rural, conservative, cavalier faction that ends up adjusting its values.

But you wind up scrambling facts and history to support your mindset.  People do not alter their mindsets without a traumatic trauma, and it seems that you do not value lives enough to be traumatized.  Thus, you are stuck with your existing values.